The PS2 version of TFU had different settings for prologue mission than the
PS3 and the level design for the confrontation with Darth Vader and the Emperor were different. The battle between Proxy as Darth Maul also did not occur in the PS2 version.

Why were two versions of the same game made so differently?

Alexrd

04-04-2011 05:44 AM

Because if you're going to make a version for the PS2, you have to make it different enough for it not to be just a downgrade version of the PS3. That way, those who bought the PS3/Xbox360/PC can also buy the PS2 version, and play something different. It's a win-win for LucasArts.

Gerevick

04-05-2011 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexrd
(Post 2772313)

Because if you're going to make a version for the PS2, you have to make it different enough for it not to be just a downgrade version of the PS3. That way, those who bought the PS3/Xbox360/PC can also buy the PS2 version, and play something different. It's a win-win for LucasArts.

Ah, so new content will promote more interest in TFU? One thing I am curious about is how realistic the prologue missions are. Which one would have happened in reality? Was the night version more plausible than the day time, the fight at the beach more feasible than the one in front of the hut?

Alexrd

04-05-2011 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerevick
(Post 2772472)

Ah, so new content will promote more interest in TFU? One thing I am curious about is how realistic the prologue missions are. Which one would have happened in reality? Was the night version more plausible than the day time, the fight at the beach more feasible than the one in front of the hut?

The PC/Xbox360/PS3 version of the game is the canon one.

Gerevick

04-11-2011 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexrd
(Post 2772490)

The PC/Xbox360/PS3 version of the game is the canon one.

I thought as much, yes. Wikipedia has confirmed this. So the PS2 version of TFU could be considered an alternate reality of the canon PS3 version?

Alexrd

04-11-2011 05:00 AM

It can be whatever you want.

By the way, Wookiepedia is more reliable than WIkipedia as far as Star Wars is concerned.

Kurgan

08-13-2011 06:25 PM

How come? Fans pay more attention to editing it?

I like wikis generally, but it's also true that it is edited by anonymous fans (or laymen). So if somebody has a question about some kind of "canon" in Star Wars, it's really no more reliable than my personal opinion.

My personal opinion is that Star Wars "canon" doesn't mean anything anymore. I figure the only reason LucasFilm or any of its affiliate companies or representatives still use the term is because they think it matters to certain fans. Somehow Star Wars stuff is "better" if you call it canon. If the original idea was that you had this one continuus story that all fit together as one tale with consistent characters, that hasn't been true for a long, long time. Just as Lucas tinkered with the story as he went along making the films, so too has the EU been tinkered with and adapted as time went on, though the biggest shakeup took place when the Prequels were released. I guess you could say that there was some semblance for "canon" at some point in the late 90's when the EU guys first started trying to coordinate each others stories and characters. But that sense has gone out the window as the sheer amount of Star Wars material has proliferated since that time and again with the prequel shakeup.

So for me calling something "canon" in Star Wars is pretty meaningless. It doesn't make the story better, because it's always retroactively so. You just look at the most recent story and reinterpret everything based on that. If I read a story and it sucks, I don't pay attention to it. I suggest any fan who doesn't want to get insane trying to make sense of it all do the same.

Look at the continuity of King Arthur or Highlander to see how hard it is to make sense of a fictional universe if we try to read it all as "one story."

So back to Wikis, they are only as accurate as the people who are updating them. They're not in any way "official." But they can be helpful as a starting point on most topics, but never the final worse, or a substitute for actual research.

Kurgan

08-13-2011 06:38 PM

Sorry to get off topic. Game companies decide what they're going to do. Sometimes a weaker console just gets a "downgrade" other times it's more like a different game. You could ask why the Wii version has features that none of the other ports has and so forth.

It's easiest to just make one game and downgrade the graphics or remove features to port it to weaker consoles. Some of the structures are different or there's some other reason to just make a different game with some similarities if you can't re-create it exactly.

Honestly I'm disappointed that the PC version (which could have been the ultimate edition) didn't have any new features and didn't have the multiplayer that only the wii version got. And why didn't the Wii version of FU2 (the only one to have multiplayer options) have a totally different type of MP gameplay than either TFU or even the single player campaign? Variety? Who knows.

Alexrd

08-14-2011 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurgan
(Post 2788148)

Honestly I'm disappointed that the PC version (which could have been the ultimate edition) didn't have any new features and didn't have the multiplayer that only the wii version got.

I think it was too much to expect a multiplayer mode exclusive for the PC version. I'm glad that we got the Ultimate Sith Edition, I only expected a bit more optimization.